[Study on serum organochlorines pesticides (DDTs) level, CYP1A1 genetic polymorphism and risk of breast cancer: a case control study].

Huaxi School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi = Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi 04/2006; 27(3):217-22.
Source: PubMed


To study the potential effect of gene-environment interaction between CYP1A1 and serum dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDT) levels on the risk of breast cancer in women, in China.
A case-control study was conducted. From Dec. 2003 to Sep. 2004, 104 women with histologically confirmed breast cancers and 154 noncancerous controls from a community were enrolled in this study. Risk factors information of breast cancer was investigated by a questionnaire. Serum p, p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (p, p'-DDT) and 1, 1-dichloro-2, 2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethylene (p, p'-DDE) levels were tested by GC-ECD. CYP1A1 m2 gene type was tested by allele special-PCR method.
Serum DDT levels of case and control were (36.90 +/- 79.41) ng/ml and (50.60 +/- 150.70) ng/ml respectively. Serum 1, 1-dichloro-2, 2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethylene (p, p'-DDE) levels of case and control were (7.43 +/- 11.10) ng/ml and (8.96 +/- 11.30) ng/ml respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with geometric mean t-test (P > 0.05). Compared with women who had homozygous wild-type CYP1A1 m2 genotype, significantly increased risks of breast cancer were found for women with the CYP1A1 m2 homozygous variant genotype [odds ratio (OR) = 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00 - 6.80]. Among premenopausal women, compared with women with homozygous wild-type of CYP1A1 genotype (Ile/Ile) and low serum DDT level (DDT serum level < or = 42.93 ng/ml), women with at least one variant allele of CYP1A1 m2 genotype and high serum DDT level (DDT serum level > or = 42.93 ng/ml) had higher risk of breast cancer (OR = 4.35, 95% CI: 1.140 - 16.950).
CYP1A1 m2 genetic polymorphism was associated with increased risk of female breast cancer while DDT exposure might have increased the risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women with CYP1A1 m2 variant genotype.

1 Follower
13 Reads
  • Source
    • "Lu et al. 1992 Shanghai Case-control 552 552 B 2 [17] Liu et al. 1994 Guangdong Case-control 125 250 B 3 [18] Ye et al. 1995 Anhui Case-control 100 100 B 3 [19] Lai et al. 1996 Taiwan Case-control 114 228 B 1 [20] Xu et al. 1997 Hebei Case-control 101 101 B 1 [21] Yang et al 1997 Taiwan Case-control 244 450 B 1 [22] Liu et al. 1998 Chongqing Case-control 155 155 B 3 [23] Tan et al. 1998 Hunan Case-control 146 146 B 3 [24] Wei et al. 1998 Heilongjiang Case-control 160 320 B 1 [25] Huang et al. 1999 Taiwan Case-control 150 150 A 1 [26] Zhao et al. 1999 Sichuan Case-control 265 265 B 2 [27] Liu et al. 2000 Chongqing Case-control 186 186 B 3 [28] Zhu et al. 2000 Jiangsu Case-control 116 116 B 3 [29] Cao et al. 2001 Guangdong Case-control 348 348 B 3 [30] Lin et al. 2001 Shandong Case-control 186 186 B 3 [31] Zha et al. 2001 Guangdong Case-control 352 352 B 3 [32] Zou et al. 2002 Hubei Case-control 112 112 B 2 [33] Shrubsole et al. 2004 Shanghai Case-control 1,459 1,556 A 3 [34] Louis et al. 2005 Hongkong Case-control 198 358 B 1 [35] Shannon et al. 2005 Shanghai Cohort 378 1,070 A 3 [36] Chou et al. 2006 Taiwan Case-control 146 285 B 1 [37] Huang et al. 2006 Guangdong Case-control 133 133 B 2 [38] Li et al. 2006 Sichuan Case-control 104 154 B 1 [39] Li et al. 2006 Sichuan Case-control 121 211 B 1 [40] Li et al. 2006 Liaoning Case-control 449 363 B 1 [41] Wang et al. 2006 Zhejiang Case-control 101 101 B 3 [42] Wang et al. 2006 Zhejiang Cohort 84 269 A 2 [43] Jin et al. 2007 Jiangsu Case-control 206 214 B 2 [44] Li et al. 2007 Hebei Case-control 175 175 B 3 [45] Ma et al. 2007 Shandong Case-control 105 100 B 1 [46] Lin et al. 2008 Zhejiang Case-control 237 237 B 3 [47] Ren et al. 2008 Liaoning Case-control 200 200 B 3 [48] Nie et al. 2009 Yunnan Case-control 200 200 B 1 [49] Wang et al. 2009 Chongqing Case-control 367 367 B 1 [50] Zhang et al. 2009 Guangdong Case-control 438 438 B 2 [51] Zhang et al. 2009 Zhejiang Case-control 1,009 1,009 B 3 [52] Qian et al. 2010 Jiangsu Case-control 698 813 B 1 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies suggested that smoking and passive smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer, but the results were inconsistent, especially for Chinese females. Thus, we systematically searched cohort and case-control studies investigating the associations of active and passive smoking with breast cancer risk among Chinese females in four English databases (Pubmed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Wiley) and three Chinese databases (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP). Fifty-one articles (3 cohort studies and 48 case-control studies) covering 17 provinces of China were finally included in this systematic review. Among Chinese females, there was significant association between passive smoking and this risk of breast cancer [odds ratio (OR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-1.85; I2 = 75.8%, P < 0.001; n = 26] but no significant association between active smoking and the risk of breast cancer (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.89-1.20; I2 = 13.9%, P = 0.248; n = 31). The OR of exposure to husband's smoking and to smoke in the workplace was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.07-1.50) and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.07-2.59), respectively. The OR of light and heavy passive smoking was 1.11 and 1.41, respectively, for women exposed to their husband's smoke (< 20 and ≥ 20 cigarettes per day), and 1.07 and 1.87, respectively, for those exposed to smoke in the workplace (<300 and ≥300 min of exposure per day). These results imply that passive smoking is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, and the risk seems to increase as the level of passive exposure to smoke increases among Chinese females. Women with passive exposure to smoke in the workplace have a higher risk of breast cancer than those exposed to their husband's smoking.
    Ai zheng = Aizheng = Chinese journal of cancer 05/2014; 33(6). DOI:10.5732/cjc.013.10248 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cytochrome P450s are enzymes which catalyze Phase-I metabolism reactions; cytochrome P450 1A1 (CYP1A1) is a member of the CYP1 family and participates in the metabolism of a vast number of xenobiotics, as well as endogenous substrates. Four single nucleotide polymorphisms in CYP1A1 have been studied concerning their potential implication in terms of breast cancer risk: T3801C, T3205C, A2455G (Ile462Val), and C2453A (Thr461Asp); controversy exists regarding their role. This meta-analysis aims to examine whether the four aforementioned polymorphisms are associated with breast cancer risk. Separate analyses were performed on Caucasian, Chinese, and African populations, as well as on premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Eligible articles were identified by a search of MEDLINE bibliographical database for the period up to October 2009. Concerning T3801C, 32 studies were eligible (11,909 cases and 16,179 controls), 29 studies (12,257 cases and 20,379 controls) were eligible for A2455G, 11 studies (7,189 cases and 8,491 controls) were eligible for C2453A, and eight studies were eligible for T3205C (1,378 cases and 1,642 controls). Pooled odds ratios (OR) were appropriately derived from fixed- or random-effect models. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies whose genotype frequencies in controls significantly deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was performed. Homozygous subjects of Caucasian origin carrying the A2455G G allele exhibited elevated breast cancer risk (pooled OR = 2.185, 95% CI 1.253-3.808, fixed effects), whereas heterozygous carriers did not (pooled OR = 1.062, 95% CI 0.852-1.323, random effects). A2455G polymorphism status was not associated with breast cancer risk in Chinese subjects or specifically in premenopausal/postmenopausal women. T3801C, T3205C, and C2453A status were not associated with breast cancer risk at any analysis. In conclusion, this meta-analysis points to the A2455G G allele as a risk factor for breast cancer among Caucasian subjects. On the contrary, T3801C, T3205C, and C2453A status does not seem capable of modifying breast cancer risk.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 07/2010; 122(2):459-69. DOI:10.1007/s10549-009-0694-5 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The characteristics of established risk factors for breast cancer may vary among countries. A better understanding of local characteristics of risk factors may help in devising effective prevention strategies for breast cancer. Methods Information on exposures to risk factors was collected from the medical charts of 4211 women with breast cancer diagnosed during 1999–2008. The distributions of these exposures among regions, and by menopausal status and birth period, were compared with the χ2 test. Crude associations between the selected factors and breast cancer were estimated using the cases in the present study and a representative control population, which was selected from qualified published studies. Results As compared with cases from less developed regions, those from more developed regions were significantly more likely to be nulliparous, had fewer childbirths (P < 0.05), and were less likely to have breastfed (P = 0.08). As compared with premenopausal cases, postmenopausal cases were more likely to be overweight and to have breastfed and had more childbirths (P < 0.05). The number of live births and rate of breastfeeding decreased in relation to birth period (P for trends <0.001). Overweight, late menopause, and family history of breast cancer were significantly associated with breast cancer among Chinese women. Conclusions Breast cancer incidence was associated with nulliparity and history of breastfeeding. Population attributable risks should be assessed, especially for more developed areas and young women. The effects of body mass index, age at menopause, and family history of breast cancer should be given priority during assessment of breast cancer risk among Chinese women.
    Journal of Epidemiology 11/2013; 24(1). DOI:10.2188/jea.JE20120217 · 3.02 Impact Factor